Pro-life blog buzz 10-1-13

from Jill Stanek.com

by Susie Allen, host of the blog, Pro-Life in TN, and Kelli

We welcome your suggestions for additions to our Top Blogs (see tab on right side of home page)! Email Susie@jillstanek.com.
Down on the Pharm discusses the research of a new chemical pill that can induce an abortion and be taken once a month – just in case: They even suggest the possibility of flushing women once per month to be sure that no undesirable embryos are clinging to life in their reproductive tracts. This type of chemical birth control is touted as possibly preferable to the forms which have been designed largely to reduce the possibility of fertilization. 

40 Days for Life prints a letter received from a woman who observed a campaign from a distance and chose life because of it.

Fletcher Armstrong features a campus outreach at Middle Tennessee State University with the long time volunteers, the Hardin family, whose newest member joined them by adoption from Armenia. (pictured left) 

Bound4Life shares the powerful two-part testimony of a post-abortive woman who found healing after 8 years of hiding her secret. 

American Life League’s Judie Brown argues that education on important life issues is missing from the Catholic Church. She quotes Cardinal Raymond Burke: We as Catholics have not properly combatted it [the culture of death] because we have not been taught our Catholic faith, especially in the depth needed to address these grave evils of our time. This is a failure of catechesis both of children and young people that has been going on for 50 years. It is being addressed, but it needs much more radical attention.

 
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life discusses the killing of preborn babies diagnosed with disabilities:
Two points about the abortion of disabled babies are important. First, ability (or disability) is irrelevant to the worth and dignity of a human being. We do not (or should not) think less of people who have physical and mental handicaps. Parents may not kill their toddler if they learn that she has autism. They may not execute a 10-year-old with spina bifida because they think she would be better off dead. 

Second, it is deeply mistaken to suppose that the life of a disabled person is not worth living. People with disabilities live meaningful and often happy lives. And caring for them, though difficult, is enriching and rewarding, as parents and caregivers attest. 

Live Action reports that a float “which featured the large model of a 12-week-old fetus” will not be allowed at New Zealand’s Alexandra Blossom Festival because of its “anti-abortion” message. Creator Bruce Lietze worked four months on the project. Allowed in the parade will be a statement made famous by Sir Edmund Hillary, which contains profanity. 

A Culture of Life says that euthanasia advocate Philip Nitschke is “tak[ing] credit for higher elderly suicide rate in New Zealand. Nitsche is quoted as saying: As a society we should not be alarmed by this trend… and taking steps to prevent access to new developments in end of life strategies or end of life drugs would be counterproductive, forcing people to use undignified and often ineffective methods. 

Josh Brahm gives six tips for arguing analogies clearly:

Klavan: The Hilarious World of Abortion

From Creative Minority:

Some off color jokes here (It's Klavan, what did you expect?) so if that offends you don't watch, but for me Klavan nails the lunacy of pro-abortion advocates.

Wa Post: Chris Smith....Abortion does not further children's health

 Chris Smith writes a wonderful op ed piece  in the Washington Post telling it like it is about the hypocrisy of trying to insert abortion as a mean to reduce maternal and child mortality worldwide.

Similarly, unborn children desperately need care to optimize their health before and after birth. Healthy children start in the womb. Abortion is, by definition, infant mortality, and it undermines the achievement of the fourth Millennium Development Goal. There is nothing benign or compassionate about procedures that dismember, poison, induce premature labor or starve a child to death. Indeed, the misleading term "safe abortion" misses the point that no abortion -- legal or illegal -- is safe for the child and that all are fraught with negative health consequences, including emotional and psychological damage, for the mother.

Abortion Rate in America by State and Race

JPosted on 16. Jun, 2010 by Nathaniel Bacon in Health, Immigration, Israel & Jewish Issues, Race

Jews have been shown by Social Research to be much more likely to support Abortion than any other American Racial Group. Moreover, they have become legendary for having a disproportionate impact on politics and culture.
For these reasons I decided to do a study to test whether having a larger percentage of Jews in a State correlates with it having a higher Abortion Rate.
First I got the Fraction of Jews by US State from this website:
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/usjewpop.html
From the Census I got the equivalent figures on the percentages Non-Hispanic White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian for all 50 States and the District of Columbia.
I got the Abortion Rate by State here:
www.isteve.com/BabyGap.htm
Finally, I ran Pearson Correlations on the Abortion Rate of a State and its Racial Composition, and found:
Correlation with AbortionPercent Jewish     +0.764
Percent White        -0.655
Percent Black        +0.537
Percent Hispanic   +0.317
Percent Asian        +0.268
One thing that stands out here is that every race except Non-Hispanic Whites will make a State’s abortion rate go up.
This is consistent with Whites, on average, having a greater ability to plan out for the future than other races do.
The other thing that stands out is, of course, the sheer strength of the positive correlation between Percentage Jewish and the Abortion Rate. A correlation that is remarkably high given that Jews only make up 2.1% of the American Population!
Clearly, it isn’t Jews aborting Jewish babies that is driving this result, there simply aren’t enough Jewish women for that to even be a possibility. Rather it seems more likely that Jews are using their Political and Cultural power in a State to promote Abortion, trying their best to make it as legal and acceptable as possible.
Also it could be that they promote Sexual Hedonism, and then after people fall for the trap of thinking its the “Cool” way to behave they’re left with unwanted pregnancies that end up terminated by abortion.
But here is the thing that is almost incomprehensible. Even though Blacks are widely known to have by far the highest Abortion Rate of any Group, and even though there are almost 5 Times as Many Blacks in America as there are Jews, the Percentage of Jews in a State has a stronger Correlation with the Abortion Rate than the Percentage of Blacks in the State does!
Let me give you a moment to let that sink in. (I think it’s one of the most intense effects relative to cause size discovered in the History of Demographic Research.)

Abortion rights activist says ....."Stand down if you don't have ovaries!!

"Stand down if you don't have ovaries!" was the rallying cry of  Representative Janet Long of Tampa in denouncing a bill being debated in the FL legislature requiring pregnant woman to obtain an  ultrasound before  an abortion...... This caused abortion proponent  Jacob M. Appel to write a post on the Huffington Post lamenting her point of view.  He thinks this line of  thinking is not only flawed but politically unwise and only helps the opposition.

Some  interesting excerpts from Appel.....

"Increasingly, pro-choice activists are noting the political downside of relegating men to second-class status in abortion discourse. As Amanda Marcotte, a Pandragon.net blogger, recently told Newsweek: "When the anti-choice side pulls energy from both men and women who are eager to halt sexual liberation and control female bodies, and pro-choicers can only look to women, we're already running at half capacity."

 Their own rhetoric of "my body, my choice" is having the unintended consequence of telling men that this is not their fight and to stay out of it. Never mind that it still takes a man to make the baby but then tells the man since he will not carry the baby in his womb..... it is none of his business.

Appel further states " the frequent claim that it's sexist to pay for ED drugs, but not pregnancy termination, or even women's contraceptives, is so deeply illogical and philosophically simplistic that it actually adds to the challenge of making the case for public funding."

Exactly and it pits women against men instead of being allies with them and makes the women look like whiners.....

Jill Stanek  devotes her weekend question to asking for reader comments on Why  the shortage of outspoken pro choice men?  Some really good responses are pouring in but  the one by Gerard Nadal is my personal favorite...

"Pro-choice men have been effectively neutered by the feminists. Now that they've created an army of lap dogs, they decide that they really want attack dogs.It's easier being a pro-life male. We get to be and act like men ought. And we get great women who aren't at war with their own nature, which means they aren't at war with the men who complement that nature and whose nature is complemented by women's.Maybe left-leaning guys are waking up."

Why Universal Health Care Will Not Reduce Abortion Rates .... a response to the Obama offensive on abortion

Monday, March 15, 2010

  [Michael J. New]

Ever since the inauguration of President Obama in January 2009, he and his Democratic colleagues have known that abortion would be a key stumbling block to the enactment of health-care reform. There are several reasons for this. First, most Americans oppose government funding of abortion. Second, the Democratic party has recruited many pro-life candidates to run in conservative districts, and these Democrats would find it politically difficult to support health-care reform that includes public subsidies for abortion. Finally, President Obama and other Democrats sound disingenuous when they say they want to reduce the incidence of abortion, but then subsidize it through health-care reform.
As such, in a number of forums, President Obama and various surrogates have made concerted effort to either address or downplay the concerns of pro-lifers. But it seems that supporters of Obama’s health-care reform are now changing their approach and going on the offensive. In an editorial that ran in the Washington Post on Friday, author and journalist T. R. Reid argued that universal health care will lower the abortion rate in the United States. Using data from the United Nations, his argument relies on the fact that several European countries with universal health care also have lower abortion rates than the United States does.

However, Reid’s analysis is superficial and unconvincing. First, abortion rates in the United States are lower than what the UN statistics indicate. In 2005, the most recent year for which data is available, the U.S. abortion rates reported by the Alan Guttmacher Institute and the Centers for Disease Control are 19.4 and 15, respectively. As such, the incidence of abortion in the United States is comparable to that of many European countries with universal health care, including Great Britain, France, and Sweden. Furthermore, even though Australia and New Zealand offer more generous public health benefits than the United States does, their rates of abortion are similar to ours.

More importantly, simply comparing the U.S. abortion rate to abortion rates in countries with universal health care is misleading. The United States has a far more racially diverse population than many of these European countries, and statistics show that a number of minority groups have higher-than-average abortion rates.

Furthermore, the experience of states that have offered more generous provision of public health benefits is instructive. For instance in 1974, Hawaii passed legislation requiring all employers to provide relatively generous health care benefits to any employee who works 20 hours a week or more. Since that time, Hawaii has consistently had one of the lowest rates of uninsured adults in the country. However, according to data from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, Hawaii’s abortion rate consistently exceeds the national average

An even better example comes from Tennessee. In 1994, Tennessee launched an ambitious public insurance program to cover its uninsured. TennCare, as it is called, expanded Medicaid to cover people who couldn’t afford insurance or who had been denied coverage by an insurance company. With an initial budget of $2.6 billion, TennCare quickly extended coverage to an additional 500,000 people by making access to its plans easy and affordable. The program, however, became so expensive that Tennessee was forced to scale it back in 2005.

Despite the fact that Tennessee invested heavily in more generous public health benefits, their abortion rate has not changed much since the mid 1990s. In fact, the decline in Tennessee’s abortion rate is actually well below the national average. Between 1995 and 2005, the Guttmacher Institute reports that the national abortion rate fell by 13.8 percent. However, in Tennessee the abortion rate fell by only 3.3 percent. Overall, it seems clear that more generous health benefits in Tennessee did little to reduce the incidence of abortion.

More importantly, there exist many reasons current health-care reform proposals would actually increase abortion rates. For instance, the legislation which passed the Senate and which Democrats are trying to push though the House includes public funding for abortion. This should concern pro-lifers for several reasons. First there is plenty of evidence that government subsidies for abortion increase abortion rates. Second, if abortion becomes a federally mandated benefit, that could jeopardize a number of state-level pro-life laws — including parental-involvement and informed-consent laws. Finally, one reason why the abortion rate in the United States has fallen is the substantial decline in the number of abortion providers. A steady flow of federal funds to abortion providers could stem or even reverse this trend.

As always, the pro-life movement would do well to continue its vocal and effective opposition to Obamacare.

— Michael J. New is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Alabama and a fellow at the Witherspoon Institute at Princeton, NJ.

20 weeks abortion

From my old alma mater.....they called for a contribution the other day and I told them I had informed them I would not contribute since they started a late term abortion mill. I wonder if the women in this video would go through with it if they saw the video ahead of time. The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform Southwest posted this rather video . And we are arguing about waterboarding......when we do this to children.